Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 85 references

Estimating the gravitational wave background anisotropy: a Bayesian approach boosted by cross-correlation angular power spectrum

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A Bayesian likelihood connects LISA detector data straight to the GWB angular power spectrum, and shows that cross-correlating with the CMB is what makes the quadrupole detectable in 4-year data.

desk verdict The cross-correlation idea is worth a look, but the main likelihood marginalizes over independent per-pixel skies, so the claimed quadrupole recovery is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01219 v2 pith:DLCI3P5W submitted 2024-12-02 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph

Chi Tian , Ran Ding , Xiao-Xiao Kou This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph
keywords stochasticgravitationalwavebackgroundGWBanisotropyangularpowerspectrumBayesianinferencecross-correlationLISAcosmicmicrowavequadrupole
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to establish that the angular power spectrum of the gravitational wave background (GWB) can be inferred directly from a detector's short-time Fourier transform data, without first reconstructing a sky map, through an analytic likelihood that marginalizes over unobserved sky realizations. It also tries to show that using the known cross-correlation between GWB anisotropies and another cosmological tracer such as the CMB materially strengthens the inference. With realistic LISA response and noise models, the authors argue that 4-year LISA data alone cannot significantly constrain low multipoles, but that a perfectly correlated CMB tracer enables an unbiased recovery of the quadrupole moment, with a partial correlation of $r=0.85$ still recovering the fiducial value within $1\sigma$. If correct, this gives a generic, detector-agnostic pipeline for anisotropy science across current and future gravitational wave observatories.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the compact marginalized likelihood of eqs. (3.9)--(3.11), assembled from three pieces: the detector likelihood for the cross-power spectra, whose covariance keeps only monopole contributions to the intensity; the conditional prior on the harmonic coefficients, whose mean is the tracer-scaled cross-spectrum and whose variance is reduced by the factor $1-(r^{\mathrm{GW}\times Y})^2$; and the analytic marginalization over the $I_{\ell m}$ using the complex Gaussian integration formula. The result adds a response-weighted harmonic-prior covariance to the detector covariance, and subtracts the tracer-conditional mean and the noise from the data before weighting by the inverse. In the numerical demonstration the inverse is evaluated by expanding the response-weighted prior term to second order, and the monopole spectrum is fixed before sampling the multipoles.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to run many independent 4-year LISA mock realizations at the fiducial $r=1$ quadrupole and measure how often the posterior's 68% credible interval contains the injected value; if the true value lands outside that interval in substantially more than 32% of runs, the Gaussian or monopole-only covariance assumption is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the marginalized likelihood for the full dataset factorizes over time frames and frequency bins as $L(D|\mathrm{GW}\times Y) \propto \prod_{t,f} |\pi C_{ab}|^{-1} \exp(-J_a^\dagger C_{ab}^{-1} J_b)$, where $C_{ab} = (C_D)_{ab} + \Gamma_{a\mu}(C_I)_{\mu\nu}\Gamma^*_{\nu b}$ and $J_a = D_a - \Gamma_{a\mu}Z_\mu - N_a$ (eqs. 3.9--3.11). Here $C_D$ is the noise-plus-monopole covariance of the detector cross-power spectra, $C_I$ is the prior covariance of the harmonic coefficients conditioned on the tracer, and $\Gamma_{a\mu}$ encodes the detector response to each multipole. The form is obtained by multiplying the detector likelihood (3.1) with the conditional harmonic-space prior (3.2) and marginalizing over all $I_{\ell m}$ with a complex Gaussian integral plus a standard matrix-inversion lemma. Applied to injected LISA data with $\Omega_{\mathrm{GW}}(f)=10^{-10}(f/10^{-3}\,\mathrm{Hz})$, scale-invariant $\widetilde{C}^{\mathrm{GW}}_\ell$, and a perfectly correlated CMB map, the paper finds the posterior on $\log_{10}\widetilde{C}^{\mathrm{GW}}_2$ is unbiased at the fiducial value $-2.4$ and remains possible down to about $-4$; without cross-correlation, 4-year data gives no significant multipole constraint.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the detector cross-power measurements fluctuate like Gaussian variables whose spread is set almost entirely by the uniform monopole part, and that a short-cut expansion used to invert the covariance matrix is accurate; if either fails, the recovered power-spectrum estimates could be biased or look more precise than they are.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Four years of LISA data, at the injected cosmological amplitude and with no cross-correlation, do not significantly constrain the quadrupole or hexadecapole; the posteriors are broad and consistent with zero.
  • With a perfectly correlated CMB tracer ($r=1$), the quadrupole $\log_{10}\widetilde{C}^{\mathrm{GW}}_2$ is recovered without bias at the fiducial $-2.4$ from 4-year data, and reconstruction remains possible down to roughly $-4$.
  • Even a partial correlation of $r=0.85$ still recovers the fiducial quadrupole within $1\sigma$, and the likelihood does not require a diagonalized noise covariance, so it applies to general detector arrays rather than only to time-delay-interferometry channels.
  • The scheme bypasses full sky-map reconstruction, and the authors report that posterior sampling completes within hours, making multipole-level Bayesian anisotropy inference computationally practical.
  • Because the likelihood is generic and detector-agnostic, the same pipeline transfers to ground-based interferometer networks, other space-based missions, and pulsar timing array experiments, provided foreground cleaning is applied first.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper notes that the multi-tracer generalization is straightforward but does not implement it; chaining the conditional prior over CMB, CMB lensing, and galaxy-overdensity maps together would likely tighten the quadrupole constraint beyond any single tracer.
  • The Gaussianity of the cross-power spectra is the softest internal assumption; replacing the Gaussian detector likelihood with a distribution for averaged cross-spectra and re-deriving the marginalized likelihood would show how much of the claimed sensitivity depends on that approximation.
  • At higher multipoles the monopole-only covariance approximation should degrade, so the cleanest regime for this scheme is low-$\ell$; computing the exact versus second-order inverse of eq. (3.10) as a function of $\ell$ would identify where the scheme stops being reliable.
  • A successful quadrupole recovery with $r=1$ would let LISA act as another observer of the same long-wavelength perturbations seen by the CMB, making the recovered cross-spectrum a consistency test of the cosmological origin of the background.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a Bayesian likelihood for the angular power spectrum C_l^GW of a gravitational-wave background anisotropy, derived directly from short-time Fourier transform detector data and optionally conditioned on a cosmological tracer Y through a Gaussian cross-correlation. The central analytic result is Eqs. (3.9)-(3.11), obtained by marginalizing over the anisotropic intensity multipoles I_lm. The method is demonstrated on four-year LISA mock data generated with the schNell response model. The main numerical findings are that, without cross-correlations, the multipoles cannot be constrained, whereas with r^{GW x CMB}=1 the quadrupole C_tilde_2^GW is recovered at log10 C_tilde = -2.4, and at r=0.85 it is recovered within 1 sigma. The authors conclude that cross-correlations can boost the Bayesian inference of GWB anisotropy.

Significance. If the derivation and numerical validation are correct, the approach would be a useful alternative to sky-map-based Bayesian methods, avoiding high-dimensional map sampling and providing a way to incorporate cross-correlations with CMB or large-scale structure in GWB anisotropy studies. Strengths include the analytic Gaussian marginalization, the general detector-pair formalism that does not assume diagonal TDI channels, the use of a realistic time-dependent LISA response through the public code schNell, and the explicit reduction to earlier no-cross-correlation likelihoods when C^{GW x Y}=0. However, the numerical validation rests on a likelihood that is not the marginal likelihood of the stated single-realization model, and the unbiasedness claim is supported by a single injected realization. These issues materially weaken the evidence for the headline result, though the framework appears salvageable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (3.8)-(3.10)] The marginalization in Eq. (3.8) is performed separately for each time-frequency pixel, with the prior (3.2) applied independently at each t and f. In the model of Sec. 2 and Eq. (2.3), however, I_lm(f)=K_f a_lm^GW with a single frequency-independent realization a_lm^GW. Conditional on that shared realization, D_{t,f} and D_{t',f'} are correlated across frequency, with off-diagonal covariance blocks Gamma_{t,f} K_f C^{GW|Y} K_{f'} Gamma^dagger_{t',f'}. The covariance in Eq. (3.10) contains only diagonal blocks and the likelihood (3.9) factorizes over (t,f), so it is the marginal likelihood of a model in which every time-frequency pixel has an independent sky realization, not the model used in the injections of Sec. 4, which uses one sky map (lower panel of Fig. 1). This can artificially increase the effective number of independent sky modes, leading to overconfident or biased posterior intervals. Even with exact matrix inverses, Eq. (3.9) does not correspond to the stated model; the numerical results in Figs. 2-4 therefore do not yet validate that model.
  2. [Sec. 4 and Appendix C, Eqs. (C.8)-(C.9)] The numerical inversions replace (C_D + Gamma C_I Gamma^dagger)^{-1} by its second-order expansion, C_D^{-1} - C_D^{-1} Gamma C_I Gamma^dagger C_D^{-1}, and similarly the related expressions, without a convergence check. Since Eq. (3.9) uses both the inverse and the determinant of this matrix, uncontrolled truncation can bias the posterior, especially when Gamma C_I Gamma^dagger is not small compared with C_D. The paper should validate the expansion against exact inversion for the fiducial parameters, or use a numerically stabilized direct inversion, and quantify the error before the recovery plots are accepted.
  3. [Sec. 4, Fig. 3] The claim of 'unbiased estimations' is supported by a single injected realization at log10 C_tilde_2 = -2.4. Unbiasedness is a frequentist property of an estimator and cannot be established from one posterior whose mode happens to lie near the fiducial value. The paper should provide an ensemble of injected realizations and a coverage check before making the unbiasedness claim.
  4. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3.1)] Eq. (3.1) treats the cross-spectrum estimator D_AB = d_A d_B* as a complex Gaussian variable with covariance (2.8). For a single STFT segment, the product of two Gaussian variables is not Gaussian, and the covariance (2.8) keeps only monopole contributions to the intensity. The text acknowledges the Gaussian approximation but does not quantify its accuracy for the short T_seg used here; a validation against simulated D distributions would substantiate this assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A] The heading of Appendix A reads 'F rom the anisotropic...' with an extra space; please correct the typographical error.
  2. [Eq. (3.5)] The barred quantities denoting the conditional mean are visually very similar to the unbarred intensity symbols in the compiled text; please use a more distinct notation and define all barred variables explicitly.
  3. [Sec. 4] The priors used for log10 C_tilde_l and r in the MCMC sampling are not stated; please specify them.
  4. [Sec. 4, Fig. 4] The statement that 'an upper limit for the relative correlation cannot be established' would be more precise with a quantitative criterion, such as a reported 95% upper bound.
  5. [General] No code availability statement is provided; releasing the likelihood implementation and MCMC scripts would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the likelihood is derived by explicit marginalization and tested against independent mock injections, with self-citations only motivational.

full rationale

The main result, Eq. (3.9) with definitions (3.10)-(3.11), is obtained by explicit complex-Gaussian integration over the intensity multipoles (Appendix C); the target angular power spectrum C_l enters as the prior covariance C_I, while the detector data enter through J, so the result is not defined in terms of the quantity it is used to infer. The method is validated by injecting independent mock LISA data with a fixed fiducial C_l and checking that the posterior recovers it; no parameter is fitted to the data and then renamed as a prediction. The r=1 case reduces to matched filtering on a known CMB template, which is a strong prior but not circular reasoning. The only author self-citation, Ref. [59] by two of the present authors, is used as one of several motivations for the scale-invariant injected spectrum, not as evidence for the likelihood or as a uniqueness argument, so it is not load-bearing. A possible concern is that the marginalization in Eq. (3.8) treats each (t,f) pixel as an independent sky realization even though the model in Eq. (2.3) shares one realization across frequencies; this is a modelling/approximation issue that could bias inference, but it does not make the claimed derivation equivalent to its inputs by construction, so it is outside the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. The central claim rests on standard statistical assumptions (Gaussianity, stationarity, unpolarized GWB), the frequency-independence of anisotropy coefficients, the monopole-dominated covariance approximation, the joint Gaussianity of GWB and tracer, and an unvalidated numerical expansion. The injected anisotropy amplitude is a hand-chosen fiducial value that determines the detectability statement.

free parameters (1)
  • Injected anisotropy amplitude log10 tilde C^GW_ell = -2.4 (and -4 in a second test)
    The detectability claim depends on this chosen amplitude; the paper shows the method works at -2.4 and down to about -4, but the claim is not valid for much weaker signals.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption GWB is Gaussian, stationary, and unpolarized, with quadratic expectation values given by eq. (2.1).
    This justifies the likelihood in eq. (3.1); violations, e.g., non-Gaussian astrophysical backgrounds, would break the Gaussian likelihood.
  • domain assumption The GWB anisotropy coefficients a^GW_lm are frequency-independent, with all frequency dependence in K_f (eq. 2.3).
    This allows intensity multipoles I_lm(f) to factor as K_f a^GW_lm, which is central to the marginalization in Section 3.
  • domain assumption Multipole contributions to the covariance of D_AB are subdominant to the monopole, so eq. (2.8) keeps only the monopole terms in the covariance.
    The entire likelihood treats the covariance as fixed and monopole-dominated; if this fails for stronger anisotropies, the noise model is wrong.
  • domain assumption GWB map and tracer Y are jointly Gaussian, with tracer uncertainties negligible compared to GWB measurements (Section 3).
    This yields the conditional distribution in eq. (3.2); non-Gaussianity or noisy tracer maps would change the mean and covariance.
  • ad hoc to paper The second-order expansion of (C_D + Gamma C_I Gamma^dagger)^{-1} is a valid approximation for the numerical inversions.
    Stated in Section 4 as a way to avoid numerical instabilities; no error estimate is given.
  • domain assumption Mock data are generated with no foreground contamination.
    Acknowledged in Section 5 as a limitation; foregrounds could bias the reconstruction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Estimating the gravitational wave background anisotropy: a Bayesian approach boosted by cross-correlation angular power spectrum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DLCI3P5W

@misc{pith2026241201219,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Estimating the gravitational wave background anisotropy: a Bayesian approach boosted by cross-correlation angular power spectrum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DLCI3P5W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01219}
}
abstract

We introduce a new method designed for Bayesian inference of the angular power spectrum of the Gravitational Wave Background (GWB) anisotropy. This scheme works with time-series data and can optionally incorporate the cross-correlations between the GWB anisotropy and other cosmological tracers, enhancing the significance of Bayesian inference. We employ the realistic LISA response and noise model to demonstrate the validity of this approach. The findings indicate that, without considering any cross-correlations, the 4-year LISA data is insufficient to achieve a significant detection of multipoles. However, if the anisotropies in the GWB are strongly correlated with the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), the 4-year data can provide unbiased estimates of the quadrupole moment ($\ell = 2$). This reconstruction process is generic and not restricted to any specific detector, offering a new framework for extracting anisotropies in the GWB data from various current and future gravitational wave observatories.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    NANOGra vcollaboration, The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background, Astrophys. J. Lett.951 (2023) L8 [2306.16213]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Xu et al.,Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I, Res

    H. Xu et al.,Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I, Res. Astron. Astrophys.23 (2023) 075024 [2306.16216]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Search for gravitational wave signals, 2306.16214

    EPTAcollaboration, The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array III. Search for gravitational wave signals, 2306.16214

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Reardon et al.,Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array, Astrophys

    D.J. Reardon et al.,Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array, Astrophys. J. Lett.951 (2023) L6 [2306.16215]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Miles et al.,The MeerKAT Pulsar Timing Array: The first search for gravitational waves with the MeerKAT radio telescope, 2412.01153

    M.T. Miles et al.,The MeerKAT Pulsar Timing Array: The first search for gravitational waves with the MeerKAT radio telescope, 2412.01153

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Stochastic background of gravitational waves generated by a cosmological population of young, rapidly rotating neutron stars

    V. Ferrari, S. Matarrese and R. Schneider,Stochastic background of gravitational waves generated by a cosmological population of young, rapidly rotating neutron stars, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.303 (1999) 258 [astro-ph/9806357]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

  7. [7]

    Gravitational Wave Background from a Cosmological Population of Core-Collapse Supernovae

    V. Ferrari, S. Matarrese and R. Schneider,Gravitational wave background from a cosmological population of core collapse supernovae, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.303 (1999) 247 [astro-ph/9804259]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

  8. [8]

    Gravitational waves from cosmological compact binaries

    R. Schneider, V. Ferrari, S. Matarrese and S.F. Portegies Zwart,Gravitational waves from cosmological compact binaries, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.324 (2001) 797 [astro-ph/0002055]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Farmer and E.S

    A.J. Farmer and E.S. Phinney,The gravitational wave background from cosmological compact binaries, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.346 (2003) 1197 [astro-ph/0304393]

    2003 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Regimbau,The astrophysical gravitational wave stochastic background, Res

    T. Regimbau,The astrophysical gravitational wave stochastic background, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 11 (2011) 369 [1101.2762]

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    X.-J. Zhu, E. Howell, T. Regimbau, D. Blair and Z.-H. Zhu,Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background from Coalescing Binary Black Holes, Astrophys. J. 739 (2011) 86 [1104.3565]

    2011 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Vachaspati and A

    T. Vachaspati and A. Vilenkin,Gravitational Radiation from Cosmic Strings, Phys. Rev. D31 (1985) 3052

    1985

  5. [13]

    Kosowsky, M.S

    A. Kosowsky, M.S. Turner and R. Watkins,Gravitational waves from first order cosmological phase transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett.69 (1992) 2026

    1992

  6. [14]

    Guzzetti, N

    M.C. Guzzetti, N. Bartolo, M. Liguori and S. Matarrese,Gravitational waves from inflation, Riv. Nuovo Cim.39 (2016) 399 [1605.01615]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Caprini and D.G

    C. Caprini and D.G. Figueroa,Cosmological Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves, Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) 163001 [1801.04268]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Aggarwal et al.,Challenges and opportunities of gravitational-wave searches at MHz to GHz frequencies, Living Rev

    N. Aggarwal et al.,Challenges and opportunities of gravitational-wave searches at MHz to GHz frequencies, Living Rev. Rel.24 (2021) 4 [2011.12414]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Alba and J

    V. Alba and J. Maldacena,Primordial gravity wave background anisotropies, JHEP 03 (2016) 115 [1512.01531]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Liu, R.-G

    J. Liu, R.-G. Cai and Z.-K. Guo,Large Anisotropies of the Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background from Cosmic Domain Walls, Phys. Rev. Lett.126 (2021) 141303 [2010.03225]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Contaldi,Anisotropies of Gravitational Wave Backgrounds: A Line Of Sight Approach, Phys

    C.R. Contaldi,Anisotropies of Gravitational Wave Backgrounds: A Line Of Sight Approach, Phys. Lett. B771 (2017) 9 [1609.08168]. – 16 –

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Geller, A

    M. Geller, A. Hook, R. Sundrum and Y. Tsai,Primordial Anisotropies in the Gravitational Wave Background from Cosmological Phase Transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) 201303 [1803.10780]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bartolo, D

    N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, S. Matarrese, M. Peloso, A. Ricciardone, A. Riotto et al.,Anisotropies and non-Gaussianity of the Cosmological Gravitational Wave Background, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 121501 [1908.00527]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bartolo, D

    N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, S. Matarrese, M. Peloso, A. Ricciardone, A. Riotto et al., Characterizing the cosmological gravitational wave background: Anisotropies and non-Gaussianity, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 023527 [1912.09433]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Valbusa Dall’Armi, A

    L. Valbusa Dall’Armi, A. Ricciardone, N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca and S. Matarrese,Imprint of relativistic particles on the anisotropies of the stochastic gravitational-wave background, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 023522 [2007.01215]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Y. Li, F.P. Huang, X. Wang and X. Zhang,Anisotropy of phase transition gravitational wave and its implication for primordial seeds of the Universe, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 083527 [2112.01409]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Schulze, L

    F. Schulze, L. Valbusa Dall’Armi, J. Lesgourgues, A. Ricciardone, N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca et al.,GW_CLASS: Cosmological Gravitational Wave Background in the Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System, 2305.01602

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Y. Cui, S. Kumar, R. Sundrum and Y. Tsai,Unraveling Cosmological Anisotropies within Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds, 2307.10360

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Wang, Z.-C

    S. Wang, Z.-C. Zhao, J.-P. Li and Q.-H. Zhu,Implications of Pulsar Timing Array Data for Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves and Primordial Black Holes: Primordial Non-Gaussianity fNL Considered, 2307.00572

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    J.-P. Li, S. Wang, Z.-C. Zhao and K. Kohri,Primordial Non-Gaussianity fNL and Anisotropies in Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves, 2305.19950

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Valbusa Dall’Armi, A

    L. Valbusa Dall’Armi, A. Nishizawa, A. Ricciardone and S. Matarrese,Circular Polarization of the Astrophysical Gravitational Wave Background, Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023) 041401 [2301.08205]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bethke, D.G

    L. Bethke, D.G. Figueroa and A. Rajantie,Anisotropies in the Gravitational Wave Background from Preheating, Phys. Rev. Lett.111 (2013) 011301 [1304.2657]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Cusin, C

    G. Cusin, C. Pitrou and J.-P. Uzan,Anisotropy of the astrophysical gravitational wave background: Analytic expression of the angular power spectrum and correlation with cosmological observations, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 103019 [1704.06184]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Cusin, I

    G. Cusin, I. Dvorkin, C. Pitrou and J.-P. Uzan,First predictions of the angular power spectrum of the astrophysical gravitational wave background, Phys. Rev. Lett.120 (2018) 231101 [1803.03236]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Jenkins, R

    A.C. Jenkins, R. O’Shaughnessy, M. Sakellariadou and D. Wysocki,Anisotropies in the astrophysical gravitational-wave background: The impact of black hole distributions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 111101 [1810.13435]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Cusin, I

    G. Cusin, I. Dvorkin, C. Pitrou and J.-P. Uzan,Properties of the stochastic astrophysical gravitational wave background: astrophysical sources dependencies, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 063004 [1904.07797]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bertacca, A

    D. Bertacca, A. Ricciardone, N. Bellomo, A.C. Jenkins, S. Matarrese, A. Raccanelli et al., Projection effects on the observed angular spectrum of the astrophysical stochastic gravitational wave background, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 103513 [1909.11627]. – 17 –

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bellomo, D

    N. Bellomo, D. Bertacca, A.C. Jenkins, S. Matarrese, A. Raccanelli, T. Regimbau et al., CLASS_GWB: robust modeling of the astrophysical gravitational wave background anisotropies, JCAP 06 (2022) 030 [2110.15059]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Sato-Polito and M

    G. Sato-Polito and M. Kamionkowski,Exploring the spectrum of stochastic gravitational-wave anisotropies with pulsar timing arrays, 2305.05690

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Pol, S.R

    N. Pol, S.R. Taylor and J.D. Romano,Forecasting Pulsar Timing Array Sensitivity to Anisotropy in the Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background, Astrophys. J. 940 (2022) 173 [2206.09936]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Malhotra, E

    A. Malhotra, E. Dimastrogiovanni, G. Domènech, M. Fasiello and G. Tasinato,New universal property of cosmological gravitational wave anisotropies, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 103502 [2212.10316]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Yu and S

    Y.-H. Yu and S. Wang,Anisotropies in scalar-induced gravitational-wave background from inflaton-curvaton mixed scenario with sound speed resonance, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 083501 [2310.14606]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Cai, S.-J

    R.-G. Cai, S.-J. Wang, Z.-Y. Yuwen and X.-X. Zeng,Anisotropies of cosmological gravitational wave backgrounds in non-flat spacetime, 2410.17721

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Alonso, G

    D. Alonso, G. Cusin, P.G. Ferreira and C. Pitrou,Detecting the anisotropic astrophysical gravitational wave background in the presence of shot noise through cross-correlations, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 023002 [2002.02888]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Alonso, C.R

    D. Alonso, C.R. Contaldi, G. Cusin, P.G. Ferreira and A.I. Renzini,Noise angular power spectrum of gravitational wave background experiments, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 124048 [2005.03001]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ricciardone, L.V

    A. Ricciardone, L.V. Dall’Armi, N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, M. Liguori and S. Matarrese, Cross-Correlating Astrophysical and Cosmological Gravitational Wave Backgrounds with the Cosmic Microwave Background, Phys. Rev. Lett.127 (2021) 271301 [2106.02591]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Capurri, A

    G. Capurri, A. Lapi and C. Baccigalupi,Detectability of the Cross-Correlation between CMB Lensing and Stochastic GW Background from Compact Object Mergers, Universe 8 (2022) 160 [2111.04757]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Jenkins, M

    A.C. Jenkins, M. Sakellariadou, T. Regimbau and E. Slezak,Anisotropies in the astrophysical gravitational-wave background: Predictions for the detection of compact binaries by LIGO and Virgo, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 063501 [1806.01718]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Zhao and S

    Z.-C. Zhao and S. Wang,Measuring the anisotropies in astrophysical and cosmological gravitational-wave backgrounds with Taiji and LISA networks, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67 (2024) 120411 [2407.09380]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Capurri, A

    G. Capurri, A. Lapi, L. Boco and C. Baccigalupi,Searching for Anisotropic Stochastic Gravitational-wave Backgrounds with Constellations of Space-based Interferometers, Astrophys. J. 943 (2023) 72 [2212.06162]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Renzini and C.R

    A.I. Renzini and C.R. Contaldi,Mapping Incoherent Gravitational Wave Backgrounds, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.481 (2018) 4650 [1806.11360]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Renzini and C

    A. Renzini and C. Contaldi,Improved limits on a stochastic gravitational-wave background and its anisotropies from Advanced LIGO O1 and O2 runs, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 063527 [1907.10329]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Banagiri, A

    S. Banagiri, A. Criswell, T. Kuan, V. Mandic, J.D. Romano and S.R. Taylor,Mapping the gravitational-wave sky with lisa: a bayesian spherical harmonic approach, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society507 (2021) 5451–5462

    2021

  44. [52]

    LISA Cosmology Working Group collaboration, Probing anisotropies of the Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with LISA, JCAP 11 (2022) 009 [2201.08782]. – 18 –

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Chung and N

    A.K.-W. Chung and N. Yunes,Untargeted Bayesian search of anisotropic gravitational-wave backgrounds through the analytical marginalization of the posterior, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 043032 [2305.06502]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Tsukada, S

    L. Tsukada, S. Jaraba, D. Agarwal and E. Floden,Bayesian parameter estimation for targeted anisotropic gravitational-wave background, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 023024 [2208.14421]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Gair, J.D

    J. Gair, J.D. Romano, S. Taylor and C.M.F. Mingarelli,Mapping gravitational-wave backgrounds using methods from CMB analysis: Application to pulsar timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 082001 [1406.4664]

    2014 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Li, Z.-C

    Z.-Y. Li, Z.-C. Liang, E.-K. Li, J.-d. Zhang and Y.-M. Hu,Mapping Anisotropies in the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background with TianQin, 2409.11245

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    NANOGra vcollaboration, The NANOGrav 15-year Data Set: Search for Anisotropy in the Gravitational-Wave Background, 2306.16221

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Adshead, N

    P. Adshead, N. Afshordi, E. Dimastrogiovanni, M. Fasiello, E.A. Lim and G. Tasinato, Multimessenger cosmology: Correlating cosmic microwave background and stochastic gravitational wave background measurements, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 023532 [2004.06619]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Ding and C

    R. Ding and C. Tian,On the anisotropies of the cosmological gravitational-wave background from pulsar timing array observations, JCAP 02 (2024) 016 [2309.01643]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    K.Z. Yang, J. Suresh, G. Cusin, S. Banagiri, N. Feist, V. Mandic et al.,Measurement of the cross-correlation angular power spectrum between the stochastic gravitational wave background and galaxy overdensity, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 043025 [2304.07621]

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    LISA collaboration, Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, 1702.00786

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Rel.25 (2022) 4 [2205.01597]

    LISA collaboration, New horizons for fundamental physics with LISA, Living Rev. Rel.25 (2022) 4 [2205.01597]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    LISA collaboration, LISA Definition Study Report, 2402.07571

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    Smith, T.L

    T.L. Smith, T.L. Smith, R.R. Caldwell and R. Caldwell,LISA for Cosmologists: Calculating the Signal-to-Noise Ratio for Stochastic and Deterministic Sources, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 104055 [1908.00546]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Thrane, S

    E. Thrane, S. Ballmer, J.D. Romano, S. Mitra, D. Talukder, S. Bose et al.,Probing the anisotropies of a stochastic gravitational-wave background using a network of ground-based laser interferometers, Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 122002 [0910.0858]

    2009 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Romano and N.J

    J.D. Romano and N.J. Cornish,Detection methods for stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds: a unified treatment, Living Rev. Rel.20 (2017) 2 [1608.06889]

    2017 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Kurki-Suonio, V

    H. Kurki-Suonio, V. Muhonen and J. Väliviita,Correlated primordial perturbations in light of cmb and large scale structure data, Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 063005

    2005

  60. [68]

    Hirata, S

    C.M. Hirata, S. Ho, N. Padmanabhan, U.c.v. Seljak and N.A. Bahcall,Correlation of cmb with large-scale structure. ii. weak lensing, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 043520

    2008

  61. [69]

    Hu and R

    W. Hu and R. Scranton,Measuring dark energy clustering with CMB-galaxy correlations, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 123002 [astro-ph/0408456]

    2004 arXiv

  62. [70]

    van Haasteren and Y

    R. van Haasteren and Y. Levin,Understanding and analysing time-correlated stochastic signals in pulsar timing, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.428 (2013) 1147 [1202.5932]

    2013 arXiv

  63. [71]

    LISA Cosmology Working Group collaboration, Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation, JCAP 10 (2024) 020 [2403.03723]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Bartolo et al.,Science with the space-based interferometer LISA

    N. Bartolo et al.,Science with the space-based interferometer LISA. IV: Probing inflation with gravitational waves, JCAP 12 (2016) 026 [1610.06481]. – 19 –

    2016 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Górski, E

    K.M. Górski, E. Hivon, A.J. Banday, B.D. Wandelt, F.K. Hansen, M. Reinecke et al., HEALPix - A Framework for high resolution discretization, and fast analysis of data distributed on the sphere, Astrophys. J. 622 (2005) 759 [astro-ph/0409513]

    2005 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Rubbo, N.J

    L.J. Rubbo, N.J. Cornish and O. Poujade,Forward modeling of space borne gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 082003 [gr-qc/0311069]

    2004 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Bernardo and K.-W

    R.C. Bernardo and K.-W. Ng,Pulsar and cosmic variances of pulsar timing-array correlation measurements of the stochastic gravitational wave background, JCAP 11 (2022) 046 [2209.14834]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgo collaboration, Upper Limits on the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background from Advanced LIGO’s First Observing Run, Phys. Rev. Lett.118 (2017) 121101 [1612.02029]

    2017 arXiv

  69. [77]

    TianQin collaboration, TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector, Class. Quant. Grav. 33 (2016) 035010 [1512.02076]

    2016 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu,The Taiji Program in Space for gravitational wave physics and the nature of gravity, Natl. Sci. Rev.4 (2017) 685

    2017

  71. [79]

    Ruan, Z.-K

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai and Y.-Z. Zhang,Taiji program: Gravitational-wave sources, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35 (2020) 2050075 [1807.09495]

    2020 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Kawamura et al.,The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna: DECIGO, Class

    S. Kawamura et al.,The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna: DECIGO, Class. Quant. Grav. 28 (2011) 094011

    2011

  73. [81]

    Corbin and N.J

    V. Corbin and N.J. Cornish,Detecting the cosmic gravitational wave background with the big bang observer, Class. Quant. Grav.23 (2006) 2435 [gr-qc/0512039]

    2006 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Maggiore et al.,Science Case for the Einstein Telescope, JCAP 03 (2020) 050 [1912.02622]

    M. Maggiore et al.,Science Case for the Einstein Telescope, JCAP 03 (2020) 050 [1912.02622]

    2020 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Torres-Orjuela, S.-J

    A. Torres-Orjuela, S.-J. Huang, Z.-C. Liang, S. Liu, H.-T. Wang, C.-Q. Ye et al.,Detection of astrophysical gravitational wave sources by TianQin and LISA, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67 (2024) 259511 [2307.16628]

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Torres-Orjuela,Joint gravitational wave detection by TianQin and LISA, in7th International Workshop on the TianQin Science Mission, 7, 2024 [2407.11293]

    A. Torres-Orjuela,Joint gravitational wave detection by TianQin and LISA, in7th International Workshop on the TianQin Science Mission, 7, 2024 [2407.11293]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Liang, Z.-Y

    Z.-C. Liang, Z.-Y. Li, E.-K. Li, J.-d. Zhang and Y.-M. Hu,Unveiling a multi-component stochastic gravitational-wave background with the TianQin + LISA network, 2409.00778. – 20 –

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.